by Chris Ostrowski
We are at last about to draw a line under the ‘Lisbon saga’ that has overshadowed the EU for the past seven years. When Tony Blair promised a referendum on the old European Constitution in April 2004 he created a “referendum repository” in Britain that was filled with every conceivable anti-European argument. Debates about the internal structures of the EU were mangled with wild claims about immigration; arguments about the Euro were complimented by frenzied rhetoric about a super-state and a European army – all these claims were given cover by those who rightly cried: “You promised us a referendum”. Those of us that believe that we need a strong outward looking Europe, and more and better internationalism, have been stuck behind this repository. So now is the time to seize the opportunity to make the positive case for the EU and learn the lessons of the past seven years.
The two biggest lessons to be taken from this is not to produce a constitution which is so far reaching, inward looking and esoteric that the people give it a big raspberry (as happened in the European constitution); and not to promise a referendum on an issue that need to be discussed as part of the mainstream of political debate.
How right was Chris Patten when he heard of the Prime Minister’s promise to hold a referendum: “They [referendums] undermine Westminster……if you have a referendum on an issue politicians, during an election campaign say oh we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum. So during the last election campaign [2001], the Euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic…”
For those of us who believe that the enactment of the Lisbon treaty is well overdue and that it should not be put to a referendum there are two points that are worth making for just one final time: it is inconsistent to be against the Lisbon Treaty and in favour of enlargement – as the Lisbon Treaty is the enlargement treaty (take note the Conservative Party). A political party can’t claim to be acting in the interest of British parliamentary democracy if it wants a treaty to be put to a referendum (take note UKIP and the Conservatives) as the right to negotiate and agree treaties is earned by whichever party wins a general election to form a government. But these arguments - which never cut the mustard, and were only half heartedly made - will no longer be part of the debate.
As we leave the referendum repository and all its corrosive arguments behind, the political parties have the opportunity to make an election issue out of what sort of role we want Britain to play in Europe and what sort of role we want Europe to play in 21st century.
If voters can link the promises made in election manifestos with their actions on the international stage (particularly within the EU itself) then there are plenty of dividing lines that are ripe for a general election campaign. For example, if reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change is in the Conservative Party’s manifesto then it is essential they answer how they will able to achieve this if they do not have the influence of all the related legislation that passes through the European Parliament.
Though there is still little widespread enthusiasm for the EU itself in Britain there is growing recognition amongst the electorate that issues have to be addressed internationally. So it’s not just on the issue of climate change where the Conservatives are vulnerable. We can not protect Britain from terrorism by acting alone; and most importantly - where this is now best understood - the health of our economy can not be preserved by our acting alone.
The challenge has always been how to illustrate that EU is responsible for some popular successes and more crucially how to show voters that if we had a Eurosceptic government then the consequences would be damaging to the British interest.
Two factors could help the government here. Firstly, and the difficulties involved in this can not be underestimated, it would be of great benefit if Government Ministers were to take the time and initiative to praise the EU and other member states individually when there is a success. It has always been the way that ministers blame ‘Brussels’ when something goes wrong and take the praise for the government when something is a success. But because we are faced with a Eurosceptic party which might form a government for the first time the risk of ‘losing’ a success to Brussels is actually diminished if the case is properly made.
For example if Ed Miliband returns from Copenhagen in December with a report on what has been achieved it would be a perfect opportunity to show how cooperation with the other EU member states and more specifically the action to be taken at EU level will contribute towards a climate change agreement. When Peter Mandelson engages with the European Commission on manufacturing it would be an opportunity to say. “We kept this plant open because of the way we worked with the EU and because of the influence we have – if we did not have such influence then British jobs would have been lost”. Rhetoric which praises the EU and incorporates ‘British interest’ story would help make the case for the EU and make the Conservatives open to attack on their European policy, and there are many opportunities: capping bonuses, closing European tax loopholes, stopping people trafficking and preventing ships carrying goods bound for Britain being hi-jacked. In all these areas there are likely to be positive developments over the next few months because of action taken at EU level but it will be up to individual ministers whether they take the opportunity to show the value of a positive relationship with the EU.
Secondly, the appointment of a permanent president of the Council is a moment that has rightly been seized by the Foreign Secretary to lay out the choice for Britain in 21st Century. A British office holder in one of the two key positions would be a tremendous boon for pro-Europeans in Britain today. Whether it Tony Blair as President of the Council, David Miliband, Paddy Ashdown or Chris Patten as the Representative on Foreign Affairs, it would reinforce how a strong Europe is in Britain’s interest. Again the Conservatives are vulnerable – while the Lib Dems and Labour have put forward candidates of the highest calibre, the Conservatives have attacked both the position and all potential candidates from anywhere. If a British official is chosen then the time between their appointment and the general election can then be used to show how the Conservatives refusal to support the office holder was damaging to the national interest and an attempt to reduce Britain’s influence in the EU and on the world stage.
Chris Ostrowski was Labour’s Candidate in the Norwich North By-election and a candidate for the East of England in the 2009 European Parliament Election
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
‘Reconnecting the European Parliament and its people’
The Foreign Policy Centre wants to know your views about the European Parliament. It will shortly be launching a project with the European Commission that will examine public awareness and attitudes towards the European Parliament, assess the problems that it faces and explore some possible remedies (including reform of the electoral system used for European Parliament elections and enhancing national and local parliamentary engagement and scrutiny). We want to get your views on what the key problems are for getting the public engaged with the European Parliament and what reforms are necessary, so let us know either on here on the blog or by email to adam[dot]hug[at]fpc[dot]co[dot]uk.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
FPC at Party Conferences: Have your say
If you attended any of the Fringe events at Liberal Democrat Conference or are attending any of our events at Labour and Conservatives please let us know your thoughts on the debates. Tell us what you agreed with, disagreed with or wanted to know more about. Share your thoughts on the FPC Blog.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Extrajudicial attacks on opposition activists belie Saakshvili’s commitment to democracy
By Carl Thomson
This post is part of the FPC's ongoing Spotlight on Georgia project that seeks to gather different view points on human rights and democracy in Georgia.
While the world’s attention was distracted by events in Iran, another country with a record of human rights abuses and rigged elections sent in the riot police to beat and arrest democracy protestors. Masked policemen attacked dozens of demonstrators in Georgia early in the summer as they held a rally calling for the release of six opposition activists who had been detained on charges of spying for Russia. The police arrested 39 demonstrators and warned of further reprisals should the protests that have swept the Georgian capital in recent months continue.
The violence has followed similar attacks against opponents of Mikheil Saakashvili over the last few months. Other critics of the Georgian president have been arrested or found their families on the receiving end of state harassment. A recent report by the Organisation for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights into last year’s parliamentary elections in Georgia found “widespread and significant” irregularities, including ballot-box stuffing, the kidnapping and beating of opposition activists, biased news coverage from the state media, and government officials campaigning openly for Saakashvili’s United National Movement.
A common refrain used to justify this repression is that the opposition is working in league with Russia to foment a coup. The crackdown on Georgia’s independent media, which has seen television stations that carry reports critical of the president shut down or nationalised, has likewise been justified on the basis that Georgia does not have a “culture of democracy” to support a free press. This is a far cry from what we were told last autumn, when popular opinion held that the war between Russia and Georgia was nothing more than an attempt by the Kremlin to snuff out a fledgling democracy on Russia’s borders.
It is now apparent that Saakashvili has interpreted the sympathy he garnered in the aftermath of last year’s conflict and the growing concern over Russia’s intentions towards her neighbours as a green light to tighten his grip on power, rather than strengthen Georgia’s democratic institutions. At the beginning of August, a supporter of Burdzhanadze’s Democratic Movement for a United Georgia was kidnapped by men dressed in military uniform, assaulted and threatened with execution. A number of other party members were arrested that same weekend. The most serious incident involved Amiran Bitsadze, a refugee from Abkhazia, who was hospitalised after his assailants dragged him from his vehicle, shot him with rubber bullets, broke his leg and ran over him his arm. According to Burdzhanadze’s supporters, one of the men who attacked Bitsadze drove a car belonging to Georgia’s Special Operations Department.
Of course, democracy is a spectrum and Georgia is far away from other post-Soviet republics like Belarus or Tajikistan both in terms of the rights available to individual citizens and its integration into the international community. We know enough, however, to realise that we should no longer view Saakashvili’s Georgia through rose-tinted glasses. While Saakashvili talks the talk on subjects like human rights and dialogue with the opposition, the ongoing assault on Georgia’s independent media – Freedom House has again ranked Georgia down in terms of press freedom – along with the extrajudicial attacks on opposition activists belie his spoken commitment to democracy.
One year after war broke out in South Ossetia, the Conservative shadow defence secretary Liam Fox called on British politicians to show their support for the people of Georgia. Much of the world accepted Saakashvili’s version of events into how the war started, but many are now asking whether we can trust the word of a regime which is showing itself increasingly detached from Western standards of behaviour. If we really wish to see democracy flourish in Georgia, then our support would be best demonstrated by asking Saakashvili why the West still feels obliged to accept his opponents as political refugees.
Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative Party’s candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.
This post is part of the FPC's ongoing Spotlight on Georgia project that seeks to gather different view points on human rights and democracy in Georgia.
While the world’s attention was distracted by events in Iran, another country with a record of human rights abuses and rigged elections sent in the riot police to beat and arrest democracy protestors. Masked policemen attacked dozens of demonstrators in Georgia early in the summer as they held a rally calling for the release of six opposition activists who had been detained on charges of spying for Russia. The police arrested 39 demonstrators and warned of further reprisals should the protests that have swept the Georgian capital in recent months continue.
The violence has followed similar attacks against opponents of Mikheil Saakashvili over the last few months. Other critics of the Georgian president have been arrested or found their families on the receiving end of state harassment. A recent report by the Organisation for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights into last year’s parliamentary elections in Georgia found “widespread and significant” irregularities, including ballot-box stuffing, the kidnapping and beating of opposition activists, biased news coverage from the state media, and government officials campaigning openly for Saakashvili’s United National Movement.
A common refrain used to justify this repression is that the opposition is working in league with Russia to foment a coup. The crackdown on Georgia’s independent media, which has seen television stations that carry reports critical of the president shut down or nationalised, has likewise been justified on the basis that Georgia does not have a “culture of democracy” to support a free press. This is a far cry from what we were told last autumn, when popular opinion held that the war between Russia and Georgia was nothing more than an attempt by the Kremlin to snuff out a fledgling democracy on Russia’s borders.
It is now apparent that Saakashvili has interpreted the sympathy he garnered in the aftermath of last year’s conflict and the growing concern over Russia’s intentions towards her neighbours as a green light to tighten his grip on power, rather than strengthen Georgia’s democratic institutions. At the beginning of August, a supporter of Burdzhanadze’s Democratic Movement for a United Georgia was kidnapped by men dressed in military uniform, assaulted and threatened with execution. A number of other party members were arrested that same weekend. The most serious incident involved Amiran Bitsadze, a refugee from Abkhazia, who was hospitalised after his assailants dragged him from his vehicle, shot him with rubber bullets, broke his leg and ran over him his arm. According to Burdzhanadze’s supporters, one of the men who attacked Bitsadze drove a car belonging to Georgia’s Special Operations Department.
Of course, democracy is a spectrum and Georgia is far away from other post-Soviet republics like Belarus or Tajikistan both in terms of the rights available to individual citizens and its integration into the international community. We know enough, however, to realise that we should no longer view Saakashvili’s Georgia through rose-tinted glasses. While Saakashvili talks the talk on subjects like human rights and dialogue with the opposition, the ongoing assault on Georgia’s independent media – Freedom House has again ranked Georgia down in terms of press freedom – along with the extrajudicial attacks on opposition activists belie his spoken commitment to democracy.
One year after war broke out in South Ossetia, the Conservative shadow defence secretary Liam Fox called on British politicians to show their support for the people of Georgia. Much of the world accepted Saakashvili’s version of events into how the war started, but many are now asking whether we can trust the word of a regime which is showing itself increasingly detached from Western standards of behaviour. If we really wish to see democracy flourish in Georgia, then our support would be best demonstrated by asking Saakashvili why the West still feels obliged to accept his opponents as political refugees.
Carl Thomson is a commentator on Russian and East European affairs and was the Conservative Party’s candidate for Glasgow East at the 2005 General Election.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Time to put Europe back on the map
As the recession bites, the demands for more economic nationalism, protectionism and restrictions on immigration have grown in Europe, but the pro-European camp in the UK needs to find its voice again, writes Adam Hug for Public Servant.
(N.B this article was written in mid-June but published late July at http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=12331)
Amid all the hoopla of cabinet resignations, alleged plots and general infighting that threatened to unseat Gordon Brown, the actual results of the European Elections somehow seemed something of an afterthought. The lowest share of the vote for the Labour Party since Keir Hardy was in short trousers was duly noted alongside real anger, though not surprise, at the election of BNP MEPs for the first time. What the result means for the UK's relationship with Europe has been mostly overlooked in the commentary.
The election campaign by the main parties was perhaps most notable for its almost complete lack of European content with occasional Conservative attacks on the government's decision not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty the only issue gaining significant coverage. John Prescott, not the most devout of pro-Europeans, was stinging in his attack on the government's 'non-campaign' saying it lacked a clear message. The retreat from making a positive case for Europe by the Labour Party, although perhaps for tactical reasons at this election, is part of a longer term trend that leaves the way open for a strategic defeat for pro-Europeans at the hands of Eurosceptic media and parties.
Even before the first vote was counted the Conservatives' decision to leave the EPP-ED to create a new Eurosceptic group 'European Conservatives and Reformists' meant it was always likely that Britain's delegation for the first time would have a clear majority of MEPs (43 MEPs) sitting in explicitly Eurosceptic groupings in the Parliament. The actual result gave the Eurosceptic camp 43 members and with 29 UK MEPs remaining in the main groupings or smaller pro-European coalitions. The Tories move from the EPP is likely to preclude them from gaining high ranking positions in the Parliament's Committees, reducing their ability to directly influence legislation. When the poor result for Labour and the PES across Europe that reduced their bargaining power for committee posts is taken into account it is clear that the UK will have considerably less clout in the new Parliament than it has previously been able to exercise.
While the corrosive effect of the drip drip revelations on MPs expenses clearly helped to depress both the turnout and support for the main three parties, the scandal simply added to an anti-establishment sentiment seen in several European Countries. In Western Europe the hard right strengthened its position in some countries including the Freedom Party in the Netherlands led by recently banned from the UK Geert Wilders, the True Finns Party in Finland and the Freedom Party in Austria. On a more positive note the Front National fell back in France from 7 to 3 seats while the German far right failed to make a breakthrough.
The trend was perhaps most pronounced in Eastern Europe, where the economic crisis hit hardest, seeing a significant rise in support for anti-EU parties and large falls in turnout in many countries, amid complaints that the EU is not doing enough to assist them. Among them include the anti-Roma Hungarian nationalist JOBBIK party achieved 3 MEPs and 14.8 per cent of the vote, while the Greater Romanian Party whose pet hates include ethnic Hungarians will join them in Brussels after also gaining 3 seats.
While commentators have pointed out that the elections were a bad day for Europe's Centre-Left, looking at the relative successes and failures it seems that the overall trend in the election may be seen as a setback for openness and internationalism rather than a post-crunch endorsement of free market values in the face of a socialist critique. The election saw call for greater economic nationalism, protectionism, restrictions on immigration and opposition to Turkish accession grow louder. However for the most part the parties of the right were able to respond to the economic crisis by co-opt the criticisms of 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, arguing that they had always preferred a more continental capitalism with an activist, regulating state.
The challenge across Europe is to reverse this nationalist, insular trend while holding a measured debate about the EU's future economic direction. However here in the UK there is a pressing need for pro-Europeans to start making the case about why we benefit from EU membership and the damage a diminished relationship with other European partners or withdrawal would do to Britain.
The pro-European camp in the UK has been without a focus for several years lacking an issue such as Euro membership to unite behind and since the decline of the 'Britain in Europe' campaign. There is a clear need to re-establish a broad based coalition in favour of the European Union, not for any new grand projet, but to reassert the importance of the European Union for the UK's long-term economic prosperity and its status as a key player on the world stage. Politicians of all parties, business, trade unions, NGOs and grass roots activists must unite to make the case that only by working together with our European partners can we effectively address the cross-border challenges we face such as climate change and repairing the global economy.
(N.B this article was written in mid-June but published late July at http://www.publicservice.co.uk/feature_story.asp?id=12331)
Amid all the hoopla of cabinet resignations, alleged plots and general infighting that threatened to unseat Gordon Brown, the actual results of the European Elections somehow seemed something of an afterthought. The lowest share of the vote for the Labour Party since Keir Hardy was in short trousers was duly noted alongside real anger, though not surprise, at the election of BNP MEPs for the first time. What the result means for the UK's relationship with Europe has been mostly overlooked in the commentary.
The election campaign by the main parties was perhaps most notable for its almost complete lack of European content with occasional Conservative attacks on the government's decision not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty the only issue gaining significant coverage. John Prescott, not the most devout of pro-Europeans, was stinging in his attack on the government's 'non-campaign' saying it lacked a clear message. The retreat from making a positive case for Europe by the Labour Party, although perhaps for tactical reasons at this election, is part of a longer term trend that leaves the way open for a strategic defeat for pro-Europeans at the hands of Eurosceptic media and parties.
Even before the first vote was counted the Conservatives' decision to leave the EPP-ED to create a new Eurosceptic group 'European Conservatives and Reformists' meant it was always likely that Britain's delegation for the first time would have a clear majority of MEPs (43 MEPs) sitting in explicitly Eurosceptic groupings in the Parliament. The actual result gave the Eurosceptic camp 43 members and with 29 UK MEPs remaining in the main groupings or smaller pro-European coalitions. The Tories move from the EPP is likely to preclude them from gaining high ranking positions in the Parliament's Committees, reducing their ability to directly influence legislation. When the poor result for Labour and the PES across Europe that reduced their bargaining power for committee posts is taken into account it is clear that the UK will have considerably less clout in the new Parliament than it has previously been able to exercise.
While the corrosive effect of the drip drip revelations on MPs expenses clearly helped to depress both the turnout and support for the main three parties, the scandal simply added to an anti-establishment sentiment seen in several European Countries. In Western Europe the hard right strengthened its position in some countries including the Freedom Party in the Netherlands led by recently banned from the UK Geert Wilders, the True Finns Party in Finland and the Freedom Party in Austria. On a more positive note the Front National fell back in France from 7 to 3 seats while the German far right failed to make a breakthrough.
The trend was perhaps most pronounced in Eastern Europe, where the economic crisis hit hardest, seeing a significant rise in support for anti-EU parties and large falls in turnout in many countries, amid complaints that the EU is not doing enough to assist them. Among them include the anti-Roma Hungarian nationalist JOBBIK party achieved 3 MEPs and 14.8 per cent of the vote, while the Greater Romanian Party whose pet hates include ethnic Hungarians will join them in Brussels after also gaining 3 seats.
While commentators have pointed out that the elections were a bad day for Europe's Centre-Left, looking at the relative successes and failures it seems that the overall trend in the election may be seen as a setback for openness and internationalism rather than a post-crunch endorsement of free market values in the face of a socialist critique. The election saw call for greater economic nationalism, protectionism, restrictions on immigration and opposition to Turkish accession grow louder. However for the most part the parties of the right were able to respond to the economic crisis by co-opt the criticisms of 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, arguing that they had always preferred a more continental capitalism with an activist, regulating state.
The challenge across Europe is to reverse this nationalist, insular trend while holding a measured debate about the EU's future economic direction. However here in the UK there is a pressing need for pro-Europeans to start making the case about why we benefit from EU membership and the damage a diminished relationship with other European partners or withdrawal would do to Britain.
The pro-European camp in the UK has been without a focus for several years lacking an issue such as Euro membership to unite behind and since the decline of the 'Britain in Europe' campaign. There is a clear need to re-establish a broad based coalition in favour of the European Union, not for any new grand projet, but to reassert the importance of the European Union for the UK's long-term economic prosperity and its status as a key player on the world stage. Politicians of all parties, business, trade unions, NGOs and grass roots activists must unite to make the case that only by working together with our European partners can we effectively address the cross-border challenges we face such as climate change and repairing the global economy.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Can Syria end the Arab cold war?
Chris Phillips (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/14/syria-saudia-arabia-cold-war)
One by one the diplomats are returning to Damascus. In the wake of Barack Obama's decision to appoint a new ambassador to Syria, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has followed suit. However, a new Saudi ambassador represents more than a mirroring of western rapprochement with the Ba'athist regime – it is an olive branch between two states that have been locked in opposition for the last four years.
While Washington seemingly steps up its attempts to woo President Bashar al-Assad away from Iran, Saudi Arabia is working in conjunction to lure him into the so-called moderate Arab camp. With King Abdullah himself expected to visit Syria soon, could this ambassadorial appointment mark the first step in ending the latest round of the Arab cold war?
Malcolm Kerr described the 1950s and 1960s in the Middle East as an "Arab cold war" pitting Nasser's Egypt and allies against conservative Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Though the actors and ideologies have changed, some form of cold war in the Arab world has remained ever since, whether Cairo's temporary exclusion after making peace with Israel in 1979, or Syrian-Saudi-Egyptian collusion with the US against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991. Its latest embodiment is well known: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, under the patronage of Iran, face allies of the US in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. While verbal attacks have dominated, with the "moderates" stoking fears of a "Shia Crescent" challenging Arab Sunni hegemony and the "radicals" lambasting Egypt's inaction during the Gaza war, violence has erupted too, notably when Saudi and Syria's proxies fought gun battles in Beirut last year.
So why is Saudi, arguably the bitterest of Syria's Arab rivals, extending a hand to end this cold conflict now? Riyadh has three priorities that promote reconciliation with Damascus. Firstly, it wishes to contain Syria's close ally, Iran, and particularly fears its nuclear programme. The Sunday Times recently reported a green light from Riyadh for an Israeli attack on Iran through Saudi airspace. Though this has not been confirmed, it is fair to say Riyadh would shed no tears over an Israeli strike. However, it would fear a domestic backlash should Hezbollah and Syria retaliate against Israel, and prying Assad from Ahmadinejad's embrace seems the best way to avoid this. The uncertainty in Tehran following the recent post-election protests has catalysed Saudi's renewed effort to detach Syria from Iran.
Another key factor is Lebanon. Saudi has long backed Saad Hariri and his supporters in the "March 14" group who emerged victorious in June's elections. Yet despite their victory Syria's allies – Hezbollah and the "March 8" group – remain powerful and some kind of compromise is needed if a functioning government is to be formed in Lebanon. Having already tried and failed to neutralise the opposition by military force, when Saudi-backed Sunni militants were swiftly defeated by Shia gunmen in May 2008, Riyadh understands it must enter dialogue with Damascus to keep the peace with Hezbollah and consolidate Hariri's electoral victory.
The final and arguably greatest priority for Riyadh is to toe Washington's line. Under George Bush, when the US's tone was confrontational, Saudi was similarly demanding of Syria. In contrast, following Obama's less antagonistic approach, Saudi and other Arab allies are softening their stance. King Abdullah of Jordan, the inventor of the "Shia Crescent" theory, has been in Damascus recently trying to sell Obama's peace initiative to Assad. Egypt has similarly invited Syria to help moderate Palestinian reconciliation talks, while Saudi's new ambassadorial appointment is the latest of several gestures of reconciliation during 2009.
So will these measures win over Syria and end the latest Arab cold war? Ostensibly Damascus is weak and in need of allies: Hezbollah is still reeling from electoral defeat and Iran is subdued domestically and isolated internationally. Moreover, US sanctions are starting to have an impact on the Syrian economy, and Obama's support is crucial if the long-occupied Golan Heights are to be recovered. Surely ditching Iran and embracing the Arab moderates is the best way to ensure the dual goals of economic development and returning territory?
Yet from a position of seeming weakness Assad is proving to be increasingly shrewd in foreign relations. He has turned the Lebanese defeat to his advantage by emphasising Syria's lack of interference – something that has won plaudits from the French president Nicolas Sarkozy among others. Similarly, a recent interview on western television has helped his British-born wife Asma present a more positive view of the country. Yet, at the same time as promoting western and Arab rapprochement, Assad has shored up the Iranian alliance by being the first leader to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his re-election.
Contrary to American and Saudi wishful thinking, it is the Iranian alliance that has given Syria its regional importance and allowed it to confront the moderate Arab states despite military and economic weakness. Assad has spoken of a desire to be the bridge or back-channel for the west to Tehran – and for this he needs to retain the alliance, not abandon it in some grand bargain for diplomatic realignment and economic investment. While his strategy of playing both sides to maximise gains for Syria might include welcoming Saudi's advances, this won't permanently end the latest Arab cold war and may ultimately make it slightly colder.
One by one the diplomats are returning to Damascus. In the wake of Barack Obama's decision to appoint a new ambassador to Syria, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has followed suit. However, a new Saudi ambassador represents more than a mirroring of western rapprochement with the Ba'athist regime – it is an olive branch between two states that have been locked in opposition for the last four years.
While Washington seemingly steps up its attempts to woo President Bashar al-Assad away from Iran, Saudi Arabia is working in conjunction to lure him into the so-called moderate Arab camp. With King Abdullah himself expected to visit Syria soon, could this ambassadorial appointment mark the first step in ending the latest round of the Arab cold war?
Malcolm Kerr described the 1950s and 1960s in the Middle East as an "Arab cold war" pitting Nasser's Egypt and allies against conservative Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Though the actors and ideologies have changed, some form of cold war in the Arab world has remained ever since, whether Cairo's temporary exclusion after making peace with Israel in 1979, or Syrian-Saudi-Egyptian collusion with the US against Saddam Hussein's Iraq in 1991. Its latest embodiment is well known: Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, under the patronage of Iran, face allies of the US in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. While verbal attacks have dominated, with the "moderates" stoking fears of a "Shia Crescent" challenging Arab Sunni hegemony and the "radicals" lambasting Egypt's inaction during the Gaza war, violence has erupted too, notably when Saudi and Syria's proxies fought gun battles in Beirut last year.
So why is Saudi, arguably the bitterest of Syria's Arab rivals, extending a hand to end this cold conflict now? Riyadh has three priorities that promote reconciliation with Damascus. Firstly, it wishes to contain Syria's close ally, Iran, and particularly fears its nuclear programme. The Sunday Times recently reported a green light from Riyadh for an Israeli attack on Iran through Saudi airspace. Though this has not been confirmed, it is fair to say Riyadh would shed no tears over an Israeli strike. However, it would fear a domestic backlash should Hezbollah and Syria retaliate against Israel, and prying Assad from Ahmadinejad's embrace seems the best way to avoid this. The uncertainty in Tehran following the recent post-election protests has catalysed Saudi's renewed effort to detach Syria from Iran.
Another key factor is Lebanon. Saudi has long backed Saad Hariri and his supporters in the "March 14" group who emerged victorious in June's elections. Yet despite their victory Syria's allies – Hezbollah and the "March 8" group – remain powerful and some kind of compromise is needed if a functioning government is to be formed in Lebanon. Having already tried and failed to neutralise the opposition by military force, when Saudi-backed Sunni militants were swiftly defeated by Shia gunmen in May 2008, Riyadh understands it must enter dialogue with Damascus to keep the peace with Hezbollah and consolidate Hariri's electoral victory.
The final and arguably greatest priority for Riyadh is to toe Washington's line. Under George Bush, when the US's tone was confrontational, Saudi was similarly demanding of Syria. In contrast, following Obama's less antagonistic approach, Saudi and other Arab allies are softening their stance. King Abdullah of Jordan, the inventor of the "Shia Crescent" theory, has been in Damascus recently trying to sell Obama's peace initiative to Assad. Egypt has similarly invited Syria to help moderate Palestinian reconciliation talks, while Saudi's new ambassadorial appointment is the latest of several gestures of reconciliation during 2009.
So will these measures win over Syria and end the latest Arab cold war? Ostensibly Damascus is weak and in need of allies: Hezbollah is still reeling from electoral defeat and Iran is subdued domestically and isolated internationally. Moreover, US sanctions are starting to have an impact on the Syrian economy, and Obama's support is crucial if the long-occupied Golan Heights are to be recovered. Surely ditching Iran and embracing the Arab moderates is the best way to ensure the dual goals of economic development and returning territory?
Yet from a position of seeming weakness Assad is proving to be increasingly shrewd in foreign relations. He has turned the Lebanese defeat to his advantage by emphasising Syria's lack of interference – something that has won plaudits from the French president Nicolas Sarkozy among others. Similarly, a recent interview on western television has helped his British-born wife Asma present a more positive view of the country. Yet, at the same time as promoting western and Arab rapprochement, Assad has shored up the Iranian alliance by being the first leader to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his re-election.
Contrary to American and Saudi wishful thinking, it is the Iranian alliance that has given Syria its regional importance and allowed it to confront the moderate Arab states despite military and economic weakness. Assad has spoken of a desire to be the bridge or back-channel for the west to Tehran – and for this he needs to retain the alliance, not abandon it in some grand bargain for diplomatic realignment and economic investment. While his strategy of playing both sides to maximise gains for Syria might include welcoming Saudi's advances, this won't permanently end the latest Arab cold war and may ultimately make it slightly colder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
